Stupid Question - rail ferries

[wagnew0923]

Why did they stop using rail ferries on the lakes. I fighured it would be faster than going down to and up from Chicago

[AARR]

Why did they stop using rail ferries on the lakes. I fighured it would be faster than going down to and up from Chicago

The typical ferry could carry 25-30 40' cars and as cars got longer that number went down. It took about 30-35 men to run a ferry. As the cost of labor went up and number of cars ferries could carry went down the economic advantage of time savings diminished until it went away because hauling freight straght thru Chicago, even though it may take longer than ferry, was offset by its significant lower cost.

[MQT3001]

Isn't the amount of traffic that would go by way of ferries diminished greatly? Like stuff WB thru Toledo would be going out-of-the-way if they went north?

Also, Chicago has become more efficient because there are far fewer RRs around. Also, many trains coming into Chicago will go to the next railroad in their entirety. For instance, a WB stack train from NS might go Directly to BNSF, so all the time it takes is just getting there. At the time of the heyday of ferries, there was no such thing as a unit mixed freight, and intermodal was still decades from primetime

[AARR]

Isn't the amount of traffic that would go by way of ferries diminished greatly? Like stuff WB thru Toledo would be going out-of-the-way if they went north?

Ferries were losing their effeciencies before Chicago gained theirs. Except for Ludington cross-lake ferries were gone by 1982.

[CAT345C]

I say we build a super ferry out of an old 1000' ore boat, built two decks on it, think of how many jennies would could haul on it! Ore how many auto racks we could move across the lake!

[MQT3001]

I say we build a super ferry out of an old 1000' ore boat, built two decks on it, think of how many jennies would could haul on it! Ore how many auto racks we could move across the lake!

They are all about 100ft wide. 8 tracks is conservitave for a number. 8 tracks x 1000ft x 2 levels= 16,000 ft of space. Thats more than enough to handle even the biggest of HH's famous Land Barges! (Pun intended)

[CSX_CO]

Also, Chicago has become more efficient because there are far fewer RRs around.

That was so funny I almost fell off my stool. Big corporations are anything but more 'efficient'.

The loose car load stuff is still getting classified in Chicago once or twice. Yes, intermodal *might* run through, but that is stuff that probably wouldn't be moving via train across Lake Michigan anyway. Plus, I'd wager that most cars now-a-days travel a lot further distances between origin and destination. You aren't having all the smaller customers, in every little town. Larger distribution networks, fed from larger facilities.

What's helped Chicago congestion more than anything is shifting traffic away from it. Salem Gateway on CSX to the UP, and the St. Louis Gateway to some extent. The UP is getting sand out of Michigan and Illinois via Avon that is going to Salem to be interchanged, and not Chicago. CN interchanges a lot of traffic at Memphis, and even a trickle at Effingham, IL. That being said, a lot of traffic still goes via Chicago because of the good connections, established service lanes, etc. St Louis *could* see more traffic, but the general consensus is that the physical plant wouldn't be able to handle it.

"The Iron Horse and the Windy City" is a good read. Explains how Chicago became a rail mecca, almost on accident, and how efforts to by-pass it largely met with failure. TPW, Kankakee Belt, and the Car Ferries.

Practice Safe CSX

[Todd Cline]

Mr. Simon nailed it. All about the labor cost/vs/ effective spending. 20-30 maritime union seamen moving 20-25 cars across the lake /vs/ 100-150 car trains going right along the tracks to Chicago. Yep, faster going "All-Rail", and certainly less expensive too. Sure, I miss the old ferries, but I also miss steam engines, Pullmans, and Interlocking towers.
Todd

[i995impalass]

Nice read: Lake Michigan Carferries